Case Results
Representative Trial Results:
Nicki Sparling vs. BBC Motors, Inc., Jefferson County Circuit Court case number 15JE-AC04166 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on her Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim, where Defendant misrepresented the condition of the vehicle and violated the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, for $5,914.96 plus attorney’s fees of $16,708.50.
Megan Crosby vs. Auto Connection of Dexter, LLC, St. Louis County Circuit Court case number 17SL-CC04283-01 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on her Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, where Defendant misrepresented and omitted facts concerning the condition of the vehicle pre-sale and failed to perform post-sale warranty repairs, for $7,945.80 plus attorneys’ fees of $14,940.00.
Robert Kempen vs. Glez Auto Repair, Inc., St. Louis County Circuit Court case number 18SL-AC36168 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on his Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim, where Defendant misrepresented the amount of time it would take to complete a restoration of a vehicle, for $25,000.00 plus attorneys’ fees of $7,000.00.
Monica Thayer and Bogumila Jankowicz vs. North Motors, Inc., St. Charles County Circuit Court case number 1911-CC00669 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Truth in Lending Act claims, where Defendant attempted to use a “spot delivery agreement” as the basis to repossess a vehicle after Plaintiffs had executed purchase documents, for $10,933.53 plus attorneys’ fees of $32,153.00.
Christopher Gideon vs. Grace Motors, LLC, Franklin County Circuit Court case number 20AB-CC00196 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on his Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, where Defendant misrepresented the condition of the vehicle and failed to complete warranty repairs, for $9,000.00 plus attorneys’ fees of $15,365.00.
Joseph and Lisa Vlasak vs. Grow Automotive LLC, St Louis County Circuit Court case number 21SL-CC00016 – Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, where Defendant omitted material facts concerning the condition of the vehicle before the sale and failed to perform post-sale warranty repairs, for $4,689.86, plus attorneys’ fees of $23,107.50.
Representative Appellate Decisions:
J&M Securities vs. Mees, 519 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2017) – Brody & Cornwell represented a consumer that had been given a “credit” on a judgment debt, which the Court of Appeals agreed did not constitute a “payment” for purposes of resetting the ten-year period for the creditor to try to revive the judgment.
Jackson vs. Barton, 548 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. 2018) – Brody & Cornwell represented a consumer in a case against a debt collector, which the Supreme Court of Missouri agreed could be liable under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Heinz vs. Driven Auto Sales, LLC and First Community Credit Union, 603 S.W.3d 890 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2020) – Brody & Cornwell represented a consumer that bought a vehicle from a dealer that had closed, and the Court of Appeals agreed that the credit union must “stand in the shoes” of that dealer from which it received assignment of the installment sale contract for purposes of a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim.
Unifund CCR Partners vs. Giles Cobbins, 637 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2021) – Brody & Cornwell represented a consumer that had been garnished by a debt collector, and the Court of Appeals agreed that service of process to revive a judgment must be achieved by personal service, not by publication.